Does the WCF teach Traducianism?

[py3ak]

I was going to answer you, but Todd beat me to it. I don't find anything to quibble with in his post, so I'll let that stand as my answer as well.

Incidentally, the only text of Scripture that seems to me at all problematic for a traducian view is Hebrews 12:9. Every other verse proffered by, for instance, Berkhof is easily patient of an interpretation consistent with traducianism.

 

[rbcbob]

Todd your excellent response is very helpful. It helps to keep the issue clear and focused. There is the imputed sin on the one hand as is expounded in Federalism whereby our first representative sinned, Adam incurred guilt for the whole race. Thus the Second Adam has secured the pardon for all whom He represented.

Then there is the constitutional sin which is passed on from father to son through natural generation. Tradutionists believe that in this generation both the material and immaterial parts of the offspring come forth from the womb tainted.

As a belated response to Marie's question regarding how the Virgin Birth enters into the discussion it is at least plausible to consider that in the composition of the makeup of the fetus the depravity of the soul is transmitted through the father alone. If such were the case we then see the significance of Joseph's non participation in the conception of Jesus in Mary's womb.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think your questions will answer themselves if you ask yourself, Is Adam's guilt imputed to him?

The questions do not answer themselves. Adam's guilt is not imputed to himself anymore than Christ's righteousness is imputed. You know very well the answer to the question.

Just a clarification, Rich, not that it's all that germane to the main question at hand: Imputation is 'reckoning', that's all. Accounting - crediting - holding accountable for, etc. - in the Greek, λογίζομαι. Adam's guilt was imputed to himself naturally, to us covenantally. Imputation does not require the state of one person to be imputed to another - that is merely one type of imputation. Our SIN, in fact, is explicitly said NOT to be imputed to US. Imputation of a state of righteousness or sinfulness is either natural or covenantal. To this end see Leviticus 17:4, Ps 31:2, Rom 4:8, etc.

We need to deal with specific and not broad use of a term if we are going to interact with a Confessional interpretation. Elsewhere, the confession distinguishes between imputed and actual righteousness to distinguish between whether or not a person actually (in themselves) earned merit or demerit. You can't appeal to a broader lexical understanding of the Greek word to argue that imputed simply means the same thing for Adam as it does for us. The whole point of the imputation of Adam's guilt is that "death reigned even for those who did not sin after the likeness of Adam.... (Rom 5).

They are consequences, but they are also now the natural state of human flesh - they were emphatically NOT the natural property of human flesh prior to the Fall. Further, as Job argues in Job 14:4, no clean can be brought out of an unclean. Death and corruption are now a natural property of human flesh - we inherit these things naturally. The guilt is not only imputed but the state of corrupted flesh is possessed by us in our very nature.

They are only "natural" insofar as God subjected the world to Curse by the Word of His power. We're actually getting to the part I have a problem with because you seem to be denying the immediate imputation of guilte from Adam's Sin which creates symmetrical problems with understanding Romans 5 vis a vis Christ's righteousness.

Are you reading the Confession that a person is conceived with corruption and death inhering in the soul that they receive from their parents and the Lord imputes guilt to that soul independently of death and corruption?

Don't you think God does both? Imputation, again, is a reckoning, rather than a 'granting' of anything. It seems to me that you are thinking of imputation in terms of God actively corrupting an otherwise perfect and holy soul. Death and corruption are the natural consequences of being born organically from tainted human nature. As Job argues, how can a clean be brought forth from an unclean? Imputation of guilt is another matter, and it is the act of a judge. I certainly can be mistaken here, but this is how I think the Confession teaches these concepts.

We're dealing now with the transmission of Sin and not necessarily the issue of how the Soul is created. Again, my key understanding here is shaped by Romans 5. A symmetry is created such that what we can say about the nature of our Covenantal relationship of guilt and corruption with Adam is paralleled to the redemption and righteousness of Christ. Both are immediate. To claim that Adam's guilt somehow occurs by a natural process of descent from a distribution of substance to his posterity is to infer that somehow we participate in the substance of Christ in our redemption from guilt. It seems to draw close to RC theology, which sees redemption as ontic while the Reformed view is that the fall is ethical and moral and that death and corruption are bound up in the guilt.

I don't know that I really consider it a dividing line on the soul's origin, although I believe the Scriptural data for a traducian view is very thin. My main concern is that Traducianism is less consistent with the issue of the imputation of Adam's Sin. I find that issue to be more critical to a proper understanding of the imputation of Christ's righteousness so I'm merely trying to understand how a traducian view preserves this.

Seems to me that imputation of guilt and inheritance of a sinful nature are both very clearly spoken of in the confession and catechism. We are guilty both for Adam's sin by covenantal imputation, and our own by actual possession. Whether either of these has anything to do with the question of traducianism vs. creationism is not clear, as the mechanism of the creation of a soul is beyond the Scriptural text. Yes, Scripture says that God gives the soul. God also gives life, and physical being. However, it is also clear that my soul is not merely IMPUTED with Adam's guilt, but my soul itself is flawed. It is NOT "very good". I have a hard time believing that the way the soul becomes flawed is by introduction of it to the flesh at conception...

Thus, I am led to conclude that you deny immediate imputation as the mode of the transmission of Sin. Am I incorrectly reading you here? Again, I would urge you to "work out" how the parallel to Christ's righteousness by way of imputation fits.

I'm not denying that we possess guilt for our actual transgresions but the issue has to do with the origin of the soul and also the way that the guilt of Adam's Sin is transmitted. I find the view that the soul is Created by God and that the guilt and corruption of Adam's sin are immediately imputed to be most consistent with the broader understanding of how the parallel imputation of Christ's righteousness is spoken of.

Finally, I find it very interesting that, in the original, there is a comma which only underlines my point that the method of transmission for guilt, death in sin, and corruption are by way of imputation and not inheritance. Thus, the orginal reads:

III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.

This would be consistent with Romans 5 that sees our death as owing to Adam being our Covenant head and being guilty. Even infants, before they can actually sin, die. They are subject to the same imputed Curse.

Frankly, I think the sentence has more to do with the transmission of Adam's sin than the way that the human soul is created but this is why I'm not traducian (though I used to be) because I believe that immediate imputation is the way that Sin is transmitted to Adam's posterity just as Christ's righteousness is by way of immmediate imputation.

 

[Pergamum]

Didn't the Levites pay tithes in the loins of Abraham?

Hebrews 7:7-10
7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. 8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. 9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. 10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.



How was it that Levi was in the loins of Abraham if Traducianism is rejected?

How was it that Levi was in the loins of Abraham if Realism is rejected?

So you see no evidence of Traducianism in this verse, Rich?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Didn't the Levites pay tithes in the loins of Abraham?

Hebrews 7:7-10
7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. 8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. 9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. 10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

How was it that Levi was in the loins of Abraham if Traducianism is rejected?

How was it that Levi was in the loins of Abraham if Realism is rejected?

So you see no evidence of Traducianism in this verse, Rich?

Perg,

I assume you have taken Hermeneutics and that a text without a context is a pretext. The issue is not whether or not this teaches Traducianism, per se, but whether or not it sees the participation of Adam's Sin in a Realist fashion, which is usually associated with Traducianism.

The way to interpret a passage is to look at the words, then the syntax, then the pericope, then the larger context. Is the author's point here to teach about the origin of the human soul? That's a first question. We then have to take the context out into Biblical Theology and eventually into Systematics and resolve it with other texts. I'm not going to base my entire theology on an "aside" where the author's larger point is to show a superior/inferior relationship between Christ's Priesthood and the Levitical Priesthood.

I interpret the passage as having less to do with the analogy and more to do with what the author is driving at, which is how sound exegesis is supposed to proceed.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I have quoted Hodge here on the reasons why I reject Traducianism. It ought to be noted that he echoes Turretin here and the insistence that Creationism is the dominant Reformed view:

§ 2. Traducianism.

What is meant by the term traduction is in general sufficiently clear from the signification of the word. Traducianists on the one hand deny that the soul is created; and on the other hand, they affirm that it is produced by the law of generation, being as truly derived from the parents as the body. The whole man, soul and body, is begotten. The whole man is derived from the substance of his progenitors. Some go further than others in their assertions on this subject. Some alarm that the soul is susceptible of” abscission and division,” so that a portion of the soul of the parents is communicated to the child. Others shrink from such expressions, and yet maintain that there is a true derivation of the one from the other. Both classes, however, insist on the numerical identity of essence in Adam and all his posterity both as to soul and as to body. The more enlightened and candid advocates of traducianism admit that the Scriptures are silent on the subject. Augustine had said the same thing a thousand years ago. “De re obscurissima disputatur, non adjuvantibus divinarum scripturarum certis clarisque documentis.” The passages cited in support of the doctrine teach nothing decisive on the subject. That Adam begat a son in his own likeness, and after his own image, and called his name Seth, only asserts that Seth was like his father. It sheds no light on the mysterious process of generation, and does not teach how the likeness of the child to the parent is secured by physical causes. When Job asks, “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?” and when our Lord says, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh,” the fact is asserted that like begets like; that a corrupt nature is transmitted from parent to child. But that this can be done only by the transmission of numerically the same substance is a gratuitous assumption. More stress is laid on certain facts of Scripture which are assumed to favour this theory. That in the creation of the woman no mention is made of God’s having breathed into her the breath of life, is said to imply that her soul as well as her body was derived from Adam. Silence, however, proves nothing. In Gen. i. 27, it is simply said, “God created man in his own image,” just as it is said that He created “every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Nothing is there said of his breathing into man the breath of life, i. e., a principle of rational life. Yet we know that it was done. Its not being expressly mentioned in the case of Eve, therefore, is no proof that it did not occur. Again, it is said, that God’s resting on the Sabbath, implies that his creating energy was not afterwards exerted. This is understood to draw the line between the immediate creation and the production of effects in nature by second causes under the providential control of God. The doctrine of creationism, on the other hand, assumes that God constantly, now as well as at the beginning, exercises his immediate agency in producing something out of nothing. But, in the first place, we do not know how the agency of God is connected with the operation of second causes, how far that agency is mediate, and how far it is immediate; and in the second place, we do know that God has not bound himself to mere providential direction; that his omnipresent power is ever operating through means and without means in the whole sphere of history and of nature. Of all arguments in favor of traducianism the most effective is that derived from the transmission of a sinful nature from Adam to his posterity. It is insisted that this can neither be explained nor justified unless we assume that Adam’s sin was our sin and our guilt, and that the identical active, intelligent, voluntary substance which transgressed in him, has been transmitted to us. This is an argument which can be fully considered only when we come to treat of original sin. For the present it is enough to repeat the remark just made, that the fact is one thing and the explanation of the fact is another thing. The fact is admitted that the sin of Adam in a true and important sense is our sin,—and that we derive from him a corrupt nature; but that this necessitates the adoption of the ex traduce doctrine as to the origin of the soul, is not so clear. It has been denied by the vast majority of the most strenuous defenders of the doctrine of original sin, in all ages of the Church. To call creationism a Pelagian principle is only an evidence of ignorance. Again, it is urged that the doctrine of the incarnation necessarily involves the truth of the ex traduce theory. Christ was born of a woman. He was the seed of the woman. Unless both as to soul and body derived from his human mother, it is said, He cannot truly be of the same race with us. The Lutheran theologians, therefore, say:”Si Christus non assumpsisset animam ab anima Maria, animam humanam non redemisset.” This, however, is a simple non sequitur. All that is necessary is that Christ should be a man, a son of David, in the same sense as any other of the posterity of David, save only his miraculous conception. He was formed ex subatantia matris sure in the same sense in which every child born of a woman is born of her substance, but what that sense is, his birth does not determine. The most plausible argument in favour of traducianism is the undeniable fact of the transmission of the ethnical, national, family, and even parental, peculiarities of mind and temper. This seems to evince that there is a derivation not only of the body but also of the soul in which these peculiarities inhere. But even this argument is not conclusive, because it is impossible for us to determine to what proximate cause these peculiarities are due. They may all be referred, for what we know, to something peculiar in the physical constitution. That the mind is greatly influenced by the body cannot be denied. And a body having the physical peculiarities belonging to any race, nation, or family, may determine within certain limits the character of the soul.


§ 3. Creationism.

The common doctrine of the Church, and especially of the Reformed theologians, has ever been that the soul of the child is not generated or derived from the parents, but that it is created by the immediate agency of God. The arguments generally urged in favour of this view are,
1. That it is more consistent with the prevailing representations of the Scriptures. In the original account of the creation there is a marked distinction made between the body and the soul. The one is from the earth, the other from God. This distinction is kept up throughout the Bible. The body and soul are not only represented as different substances, but also as having different origins. The body shall return to dust, says the wise man, and the spirit to God who gave it. Here the origin of the soul is represented as different from and higher than that of the body. The former is from God in a sense in which the latter is not. In like manner God is said to form “the spirit of man within him” (Zech. xii. 1); to give “breath unto the people upon” the earth, “and spirit to them that walk therein.” (Is. xlii. 5.) This language nearly agrees with the account of the original creation, in which God is said to have breathed into man the breath of life, to indicate that the soul is not earthy or material, but had its origin immediately from God. Hence He is called “God of the spirits of all flesh.” (Num. xvi. 22.) It could not well be said that He is God of the bodies of all men. The relation in which the soul stands to God as its God and creator is very different from that in which the body stands to Him. And hence in Heb. xii. 9, it is said, “We have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?” The obvious antithesis here presented is between those who are the fathers of our bodies and Him who is the Father of our spirits. Our bodies are derived from our earthly parents, our souls are derived from God. This is in accordance with the familiar use of the word flesh, where it is contrasted, either expressly or by implication, with the soul. Paul speaks of those who had not “seen his face in the flesh,” of “the life he now lived in the flesh.” He tells the Philippians that it was needful for them that he should remain “in the flesh;” he speaks of his “mortal flesh.” The Psalmist says of the Messiah, “my flesh shall rest in hope,” which the Apostle explains to mean that his flesh should not see corruption. In all these, and in a multitude of similar passages, flesh means the body, and “fathers of our flesh” means fathers of our bodies. So far, therefore, as the Scriptures reveal anything on the subject, their authority is against traducianism and in favour of creationisrn.


Argument from the Nature of the Soul.

2. The latter doctrine, also, is clearly most consistent with the nature of the soul. The soul is admitted, among Christians, to be immaterial and spiritual. It is indivisible. The traducian doctrine denies this universally acknowledged truth. It asserts that the soul admits of “separation or division of essence.”1 On the same ground that the Church universally rejected the Gnostic doctrine of emanation as inconsistent with the nature of God as a spirit, it has, with nearly the same unanimity, rejected the doctrine that the soul admits of division of substance. This is so serious a difficulty that some of the advocates of the ex traduce doctrine endeavour to avoid it by denying that their theory assumes any such separation or division of the substance of the soul. But this denial avails little. They maintain that the same numerical essence which constituted the soul of Adam constitutes our souls. If this be so, then either humanity is a general essence of which individual men are the modes of existence, or what was wholly in Adam is distributively, partitively, and by separation, in the multitude of his descendants. Derivation of essence, therefore, does imply, and is generally admitted to imply, separation or division of essence. And this must be so if numerical identity of essence in all mankind is assumed to be secured by generation or propagation.
3. A third argument in favour of creationism and against traducianism is derived from the Scriptural doctrine as to the person of Christ. He was very man; He had a true human nature; a true body and a rational soul. He was born of a woman. He was, as to his flesh, the son of David. He was descended from the fathers. He was in all points made like as we are, yet without sin. This is admitted on both sides. But, as before remarked in reference to realism, this, on the theory of traducianism, necessitates the conclusion that Christ’s human nature was guilty and sinful We are partakers of Adam’s sin both as to guilt and pollution, because the same numerical essence which sinned in him is communicated to us. Sin, it is said, is an accident, and supposes a substance in which it inheres, or to which it pertains. Community in sin supposes, therefore, community of essence. If we were not in Adam as to essence we did not sin in him, and do not derive a corrupt nature from him. But, if we were in him as to essence then his sin was our sin both as to guilt and pollution. This is the argument of traducianists repeated in every form. But they insist that Christ was in Adam as to the substance of his human nature as truly as we were. They say that if his body and soul were not derived from the body and soul of his virgin mother he was no true man, and cannot be the redeemer of men. What is true of other men must, consequently, be true of Him. He must, therefore, be as much involved in the guilt and corruption of the apostasy as other men. It will not do to affirm and deny the same thing. It is a contradiction to say that we are guilty of Adam’s sin because we are partakers of his essence, and that Christ is not guilty of his sin nor involved in its pollution, although He is a partaker of his essence. If participation of essence involve community of guilt and depravity in the one case, it must also in the other. As this seems a legitimate conclusion from the traducian doctrine, and as this conclusion is anti-Christian, and false, the doctrine itself cannot be true.


§ 4. Concluding Remarks.

Such are the leading arguments on both sides of this question In reference to this discussion it may be remarked,
1. That while it is incumbent on us strenuously to resist any doctrine which assumes the divisibility, and consequent materiality, of the human soul, or which leads to the conclusion that the human nature of our blessed Lord was contaminated with sin, yet it does not become us to be wise above that which is written. We may confess that generation, the production of a new individual of the human race, is an inscrutable mystery. But this must be said of the transmission of life in all its forms. If theologians and philosophers would content themselves with simply denying the creation of the soul ex nihilo, without insisting on the division of the substance of the soul or the identity of essence in all human beings, the evil would not be so great. Some do attempt to be thus moderate, and say, with Frohschammer,1 “Generare is nicht ein traducere, sondern ein secundares, ein creatürliches creare.“They avail themselves of the analogy often referred to, “cum flamma accendit flammam, neque tota flarmma accendens transit in accensam neque pars ejus in eam descendit: ita anima parentum generat aniniam filii, ei nihil decedat.” It must be confessed, however, that in this view the theory loses all its value as a means of explaining the propagation of sin.
2. It is obviously most unreasonable and presumptuous, as well as dangerous, to make a theory as to the origin of the soul the ground of a doctrine so fundamental to the Christian system as that of original sin. Yet we see theologians, ancient and modern, boldly asserting that if their doctrine of derivation, and the consequent numerical sameness of substance in all men, be not admitted, then original sin is impossible. That is, that nothing can be true, no matter how plainly taught in the word of God, which they cannot explain. This is done even by those who protest against introducing philosophy into theology, utterly unconscious, as it would seem, that they themselves occupy, quoad hoc, the same ground with the rationalists. They will not believe in hereditary depravity unless they can explain the mode of its transmission. There can be no such thing, they say, as hereditary depravity unless the soul of the child is the same numerical substance as the soul of the parent. That is, the plain assertions of the Scriptures cannot be true unless the most obscure, unintelligible, and self-contradictory, and the least generally received philosophical theory as to the constitution of man and the propagation of the race be adopted. No man has a right to hang the millstone of his philosophy around the neck of the truth of God.
3. There is a third cautionary remark which must not be omitted. The whole theory of traducianism is founded on the assumption that God, since the original creation, operates only through means. Since the “sixth day the Creator has, in this world, exerted no strictly creative energy. He rested from the work of creation upon the seventh day, and still rests.”2 The continued creation of souls is declared by Delitzsch3 to be inconsistent with God’s relation to the world. He now produces only mediately, i. e., through the operation of second causes. This is a near approach to the mechanical theory of the universe, which supposes that God, having created the world and endowed his creatures with certain faculties and properties, leaves it to the operation of these second causes. A continued superintendence of Providence may be admitted, but the direct exercise of the divine efficiency is denied. What, then, becomes of the doctrine of regeneration’? The new birth is not the effect of second causes. It is not a natural effect produced by the influence of the truth or the energy of the human will. It is due to the immediate exercise of the almighty power of God. God’s relation to the world is not that of a mechanist to a machine, nor such as limits Him to operating only through second causes. He is immanent in the world. He sustains and guides all causes. He works constantly through them, with them, and without them. As in the operations of writing or speaking there is with us the union and combined action of mechanical, chemical, and vital forces, controlled by the presiding power of mind; and as the mind, while thus guiding the operations of the body, constantly exercises its creative energy of thought, so God, as immanent in the world, constantly guides all the operations of second causes, and at the same time exercises uninterruptedly his creative energy. Life is not the product of physical causes. We know not that its origin is in any case due to any cause other than the immediate power of God. If life be the peculiar attribute of immaterial substance, it may be produced agreeably to a fixed plan by the creative energy of God whenever the conditions are present under which He has purposed it should begin to be. The organization of a seed, or of the embryo of an animal, so far as it consists of matter, may be due to the operation of material causes guided by the providential agency of God, while the vital principle itself is due to his creative power. There is nothing in this derogatory to the divine character. There is nothing in it contrary to the Scriptures. There is nothing in it out of analogy with the works and working of God. It is far preferable to the theory which either entirely banishes God from the world, or restricts his operations to a concursus with second causes. The objection to creationism that it does away with the doctrine of miracles, or that it supposes God to sanction every act with which his creative power is connected, does not seem to have even plausibility. A miracle is not simply an event due to the immediate agency of God, for then every act of conversion would be a miracle. But it is an event, occurring in the external world, which involves the suspension or counteracting of some natural law, and which can be referred to nothing but the immediate power of God. The origination of life, therefore, is neither in nature nor design a miracle, in the proper sense of the word. This exercise of God’s creative energy, in connection with the agency of second causes, no more implies approbation than the fact that He gives and sustains the energy of the murderer proves that He sanctions murder.
4. Finally this doctrine of traducianism is held by those who contend for the old realistic doctrine that humanity is a generic substance or life. The two theories, however, do not seem to harmonize, and their combination produces great confusion and obscurity. According to the one theory the soul of the child is derived from the soul of its parents; according to the other theory there is no derivation. One magnet is not, or need not be derived from another; one Leyden jar is not derived from another; nor one galvanic battery from another. There is no derivation in the case. The general forces of magnetism, electricity and galvanism, are manifested in connection with given material combinations. And if a man be the manifestation of the general principle of humanity in connection with a given human body, his human nature is not derived from his immediate progenitors.
The object of this discussion is not to arrive at certainty as to what is not clearly revealed in Scripture, nor to explain what is, on all sides, admitted to be inscrutable, but to guard against the adoption of principles which are in opposition to plain and important doctrines of the word of God. If traducianism teaches that the soul admits of abscission or division; or that the human race are constituted of numerically the same substance; or that the Son of God assumed into personal union with himself the same numerical substance which sinned and fell in Adam; then it is to be rejected as both false and dangerous. But if, without pretending to explain everything, it simply asserts that the human race is propagated in accordance with the general law which secures that like begets like; that the child derives its nature from its parents through the operation of physical laws, attended and controlled by the agency of God, whether directive or creative, as in all other cases of the propagation of living creatures, it may be regarded as an open question, or matter of indifference. Creationism does not necessarily suppose that there is any other exercise of the immediate power of God in the production of the human soul, than such as takes place in the production of life in other cases. It only denies that the soul is capable of division, that all mankind are composed of numerically the same essence and that Christ assumed numerically the same essence that sinned in Adam.
Hodge, C. (1997). Vol. 2: Systematic theology (68–76). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

 

[Pergamum]

Thank you for the lesson in hermeneutics, but some of the asides in Scripture also yield truth.

If I am not mistaken, Luther, Tertullian, Edwards, Shedd and A.H. Strong all advocated this position and Hebrew 7 often appears in any discussion on this doctrine, as well as these other verses:

Genesis 46:26 –"All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob’s sons’ wives, all the souls were threescore and six."

I Corinthians 15:22 –"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

Hebrews 7:9,10 –"Levi also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchizadek met him."

Are all of these inconsequential to our discussion because they are merely asides?


Here's a good link that shows direct quotes from theologians of the past (and, Heb 7 does play a role): Light After Darkness Foundation - Turretin on Traducianism, Refuted

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The Reformed theologians understood that Luther and Tertullian held to Traducianism and rejected it nonetheless.

My point is that the issue is a hermeneutical one. I would not go to either of the verses you cited to build a case for Traducianism or its attendant Realistic view.

Systematics arises out of exegesis which then moves back to inform Exegesis in a refining spiral. I realize that the verses cited could be built up to develop a doctrine of Traducianism but one could not simply ignore the context in which they are utilized any more that we can ignore how Ishmael and Isaace are utilized to drive a larger point in Galatians 4.

AND...oh by the way, this thread is about whether the WCF teaches Traducianism.

Do you have evidence that the framers of the WCF were out of the Reformed stream on thought on this point?

 

[Pergamum]

Building a case and buttressing a case are two different things. There are many other reasons as well, I only mentioned these few verses and did not give an exhaustive case.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Building a case and buttressing a case are two different things. There are many other reasons as well, I only mentioned these few verses and did not give an exhaustive case.

Fair enough, but you asked a simple question: "How can this verse teach anything but a Traducian view?"

I answered your question.

The issue again, however, is not the broader debate on Traducianism vs. Creationism but whether the WCF teaches it. I know I have been as guilty as any other in diving into the debate but we need to restrict the discussion to the question of the OP.

 

[py3ak]

Elsewhere, the confession distinguishes between imputed and actual righteousness to distinguish between whether or not a person actually (in themselves) earned merit or demerit.

As far as I can tell some form of the word "impute" appears in VI.3 and XI.1 (twice) and no where else. In neither place do I see the distinction you're making.

We're dealing now with the transmission of Sin and not necessarily the issue of how the Soul is created.

Right. And the Confession points out two ways that sin broadly taken is transmitted. The guilt of sin is imputed, the corruption of sin is conveyed. I know you capitalize sin, but you haven't really acknowledged or addressed the fact that sin exists in more than one relation (see WLC 25).

Again, my key understanding here is shaped by Romans 5. A symmetry is created such that what we can say about the nature of our Covenantal relationship of guilt and corruption with Adam is paralleled to the redemption and righteousness of Christ. Both are immediate. To claim that Adam's guilt somehow occurs by a natural process of descent from a distribution of substance to his posterity is to infer that somehow we participate in the substance of Christ in our redemption from guilt. It seems to draw close to RC theology, which sees redemption as ontic while the Reformed view is that the fall is ethical and moral and that death and corruption are bound up in the guilt.

I'm not sure I follow you here, but I'm pretty sure I don't agree! Romans 5 is obviously the key text, but it establishes an asymmetry as well as a symmetry, for one thing (vv.15,16). Second, I think you are reading into others, and certainly into me, to charge us (me) with the claim that "Adam's guilt occurs by a natural process" - a phrase of whose meaning I'm not sure. And the conclusion you draw is pretty obviously far from the mark of what traducianists have believed. If you can bring forth a Reformed theologian holding to traducianism who thinks that redemption is ontic you may have a case, but until this time I haven't found anything like that.

I think the questions you need to consider are:
A. Whether union with Christ has anything to do with imputation, and if so what its relation is?
B. Why the Confession bothers to mention that they are the root of all mankind?

Finally, I find it very interesting that, in the original, there is a comma which only underlines my point that the method of transmission for guilt, death in sin, and corruption are by way of imputation and not inheritance.

Unless Chris thinks otherwise, I'd be leery of putting any weight on this argument: after all, that comma might have been the printer's substitution, since Burgess has a semicolon.
Also consider WLC 26:

Q. How is original sin conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity?
A. Original sin is conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity by natural generation, so as all that proceed from them in that way are conceived and born in sin.

Natural generation plays a vital role in the conveyance of original sin. Unless I'm misreading you, you seem to be denying that because of your view of immediate imputation. But if so, then your view of immediate imputation is obviously not that of the Standards.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Well, as I said, I'm finished with the broader discussion Ruben. I'll admit I just read the same on WLC 25 and don't possess enough knowledge to interact with what is meant by "natural generation". I'm greatly persuaded of the view of immediated imputation by Murray's work on the subject.

That said, do you have evidence that the Westminster Assembly was out of the stream of Turretin's views on the matter? Creationism seems to have been the Reformed view on the origin of the Soul.

 

[toddpedlar]

We're dealing now with the transmission of Sin and not necessarily the issue of how the Soul is created. Again, my key understanding here is shaped by Romans 5. A symmetry is created such that what we can say about the nature of our Covenantal relationship of guilt and corruption with Adam is paralleled to the redemption and righteousness of Christ. Both are immediate. To claim that Adam's guilt somehow occurs by a natural process of descent from a distribution of substance to his posterity is to infer that somehow we participate in the substance of Christ in our redemption from guilt.

So I'm kind of confused as to why you're painting me as one who holds that Adam's guilt (GUILT, which is adamantly NOT the same as the total depravity of the flesh) is not passed to us through immediate imputation.

Seems to me that imputation of guilt and inheritance of a sinful nature are both very clearly spoken of in the confession and catechism. We are guilty both for Adam's sin by covenantal imputation, and our own by actual possession. Whether either of these has anything to do with the question of traducianism vs. creationism is not clear, as the mechanism of the creation of a soul is beyond the Scriptural text. Yes, Scripture says that God gives the soul. God also gives life, and physical being. However, it is also clear that my soul is not merely IMPUTED with Adam's guilt, but my soul itself is flawed. It is NOT "very good". I have a hard time believing that the way the soul becomes flawed is by introduction of it to the flesh at conception...

Thus, I am led to conclude that you deny immediate imputation as the mode of the transmission of Sin. Am I incorrectly reading you here? Again, I would urge you to "work out" how the parallel to Christ's righteousness by way of imputation fits.

You've totally misread me. I don't see how you can be led to conclude that I deny immediate imputation. I agree with immediate imputation AND I merely argued that we ALSO incur further guilt by our own actions. I really am amazed to hear you read any denial of the immediate imputation of guilt when I specifically argued that the confession and catechisms clearly teach imputation. What I am denying, though, is that our sinful nature is ours through imputation.

I'm not denying that we possess guilt for our actual transgresions but the issue has to do with the origin of the soul and also the way that the guilt of Adam's Sin is transmitted. I find the view that the soul is Created by God and that the guilt and corruption of Adam's sin are immediately imputed to be most consistent with the broader understanding of how the parallel imputation of Christ's righteousness is spoken of.

I'm not sure the parallelism works out exactly when it comes to the question of corruption. I'd like to hear where the standards teach imputation of corrupt nature (rather than natural generation of corrupt nature). I don't see the comma vs. semicolon thing as conclusive in any sense at all.

Finally, I find it very interesting that, in the original, there is a comma which only underlines my point that the method of transmission for guilt, death in sin, and corruption are by way of imputation and not inheritance. Thus, the orginal reads:

III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.

Grammatically "the guilt" is all that I see connected with the verb "imputed". Grammatically it seems to me that section III says

1. the guilt of this sin was imputed
and
2. the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, was conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.

The one verb is imputed.
The other verb is conveyed.

I don't see how all the stuff included in 2. can be included in 1., since they are independent clauses connected by "and".

It seems to me that the way I'm reading it (I've just checked) is the way David Dickson teaches it in his treatment of chapter VI in "Truth's Victory over Error". That is, he treats the imputation of Adam's guilt and the conveyance of corrupt nature as two totally separate (yet inseparably linked) things. What is IMPUTED is the guilt - not the nature. A sinful nature arises by natural generation. I just don't get the objection (unless there has just been a simple misunderstanding of terms) to the distinction between imputation of guilt of Adam's first sin (which of course I maintain TOTALLY as immediately imputed a la John Murray) and the natural process by which a sinful creature begets something which is like unto his nature (as in Genesis 5, where Seth is said to be begotten AFTER ADAM's NATURE - sinful like himself, AND imputed with Adam's guilt).

 

[toddpedlar]

Well, as I said, I'm finished with the broader discussion Ruben. I'll admit I just read the same on WLC 25 and don't possess enough knowledge to interact with what is meant by "natural generation". I'm greatly persuaded of the view of immediated imputation by Murray's work on the subject.

Unless I'm mistaken, Rich, when Murray contrasts mediate with immediate imputation of Adam's sin, what he's talking about is the guilt of Adam's covenant-breaking sin, and NOT the corrupted human nature... Murray clearly in the chapter "The Sin Imputed" is talking about Adam's first sin being imputed to us, and not the passing on of our sinful nature from parent to child.

 

[py3ak]

Admittedly I'm more interested in the question of the transmission of sin myself than the origin on the soul. In my view creationism and traducianism are theories that attempt to account for a question we really don't know the answer to, and are of value only insofar as they safeguard more clearly revealed truths, like the immateriality of the soul.
I think Bavinck strikes a good balance overall in Reformed Dogmatics, III. 83-85, 100-106. Also, though Turretin is a creationist (V.13) and affirms immediate imputation (IX.9) he also maintains that "original sin or inherent stain and depravity" is propagated to us be generation (IX.10).
As I said before, I don't think the Confession presents traducianism as true; I also don't think they rule it out of court. I haven't run across any treatments of the question in the writings of divines who were at the Assembly, but Turretin presumably had some names in mind when he said that "almost all" the orthodox were creationists.

 

[toddpedlar]

As am I, Ruben. The origin of the soul is an interesting question to an extent - but one probably wherein we ought to be pleased to cite Deuteronomy 29:29. I'll also agree that the WCF does not teach traducianism (but I also don't think it teaches creationism, or in fact it WOULD rule out traducianism by construction). I actually don't think the Westminster Assembly seems to have been all that concerned about the issue (though as some have implied, maybe they were all of one mind on the question). On the question of traducianism vs. creationism in an absolute sense (outside the reference to the WCF), actually, I'm not even firmly in one camp or the other, though I see weaknesses in both arguments.

I do think the WCF teaches the natural passing on from parents to child the sinful nature that post-lapsarian Adam had, and that it clearly teaches the immediate imputation of Adam's first sin to all humanity through the covenantal relation of all with Adam (just as it teaches the immediate imputation of Christ's righteousness by covenantal relation of the elect with Christ). These are the things we should be FAR more concerned with being on the same page about.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I probably stated my concerns imprecisely and hastily above. If I offended either of you I repent. My main concerns are those as Hodge lays out in echoing Turretin. I guess I associate Traducianism with a sub-division of human substance and a Realistic view of participation in Sin. I think there is a reason why the Reformed were both Creationists and Federal in their theology as the two seem to go most naturally together in my way of thinking. I probably shouldn't have jumped into the discussion with such interest and muddied the issue away from the OP. I think it is fair to assert that the sentence in the Confession deals more with the transmission of Sin than it does with the origin of the Soul (though I think the two end up being related).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Todd & Ruben,

The research I'm finding indicates that traducianism is typically only found in Lutheran theology or by anti-Federal theologians although there is some acknowledgement that that Federal Traducianists exist. Do you guys know who has written a Systematic Theology that integrates Traducianism with Federalism? I'm asking not to shoot your view down but to get a sense of the proponents.

 

[toddpedlar]

Todd & Ruben,

The research I'm finding indicates that traducianism is typically only found in Lutheran theology or by anti-Federal theologians although there is some acknowledgement that that Federal Traducianists exist. Do you guys know who has written a Systematic Theology that integrates Traducianism with Federalism? I'm asking not to shoot your view down but to get a sense of the proponents.

Rich -

Just to be clear again, I'm not a traducianist - I'm just saying there are elements of creationism that don't seem to make sense (but also I'm admitting not having looked super deep into this question before - it's always been a Deut 29.29 thing for me), and am admitting there are things about traducianism that don't make sense either.

As for federal traducianists the one that I can come up with on the top of my head is W.G.T. Shedd. Also, though he's not as strictly covenantal as we'd like him to be sometimes, Jonathan Edwards - I believe - was a traducianist.

 

[py3ak]

No need for an apology, Rich. I think the names that come up most often are Tertullian, Augustine (some say he's undecided), Edwards, Shedd and A.H. Strong. I haven't seen it demonstrated that traducianism is inconsistent with federalism, but obviously if you have to choose it's going to be traducianism that gets the boot.

 

[toddpedlar]

and Rich, I too am not offended in the least... what I've long loved most about this board is that we confess the same faith, and hold the same confessions, and are zealous for the truth. We confess our unity and common bond that transcends any disagreements (many of which are often temporary as we're studying through issues) and is far more valuable to me than any difference of opinion on less clear matters. Thanks for engaging and being willing to share in the discussion.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I was giving this a little more thought this AM. I don't think the WCF framers would have even given traducianism a second thought given how every Scholastic and that this was one area where the RCC and the Reformers agreed. Only the Lutherans favored Traducianism.

I don't think the WCF framers would have had any interactions with Traducian views that would have also been Federal in theology. As we discussed, the sentence in question has to do with the transmission of Sin and Traducian posits a view of the soul as propagating through Adam's posterity through a subdivision of his own soul.

In other words, the Traducian view would have seen mankind as a unity in Adam and then not only did his progeny's bodies come from the conception of a fetus but the fetus' soul was "present" in Adam's soul at the beginning and the soul was a subsistence of Adam's original soul. I may be stating things imprecisely here but I think you get my drift.

In other words, Traducianism would equal Realism in the framers' minds.

As I thought about natural generation then, what they are *not* saying about the transmission of Sin is a denial of Federalism in WLC 25. As I read Turretin, the view of the Reformers was that the bodies of men propagated through natural generation but God, as the "father of spirits", gave the soul to men as they were conceived.

As I understand it then, one can think of Nature as being under a general Curse where all of Nature is under corruption and death. A dog is not necessarily guilty of sin but nevertheless dies because He is subject to the curse as the rest of Creation is.

Consequently, I believe what the sentence has in mind is that the natural generation of fetus creates a body that is subject to death and corruption but that the guilt of sin is by imputation. I think this is inherently Federal in terms of the imputation of sin's guilt while the bodies themselves are corrupted and die as being born into a fallen world.

I think some may have a conception of Creationism as denying that Mom and Dad don't contribute to the child but Creationism always held that physical nature came from Mom and Dad (along with death and corruption as part of this Created order) while the soul was created by God. I think there are some philosophical arguments here that are over my head but I also have a problem with the notion that each child is simply a subsistence of Adam's original Soul as this gets into Realism and a denial of Federalism.

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

Thank you Semper Fidelis from changing your language from this...

Do you have evidence that the framers of the WCF were out of the Reformed stream on thought on this point?

To this....

do you have evidence that the Westminster Assembly was out of the stream of Turretin's views on the matter?

Emphasis mine…


But why is it that it seems that many of the Reformed in history are creationists? It does seem that the WFC is at least general enough that there is not a concrete position taken. If the WFC is of the Creationist view then why the ambiguity? I think that would be a question that is in much greater need of answer....

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm not sure I can see the distinction. From what I've read, Traducianism had been rejected for centuries. Is there evidence of a lack of Reformed consensus on this matter during the 16th and 17th centuries?

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

Is there not sufficient ambiguity on the subject within the WCF that the question is debated ~360 years later? Why did they not use more definitive language. I think that would be a question that is in much greater need of answer....

 

[Semper Fidelis]

But why is it that it seems that many of the Reformed in history are creationists? It does seem that the WFC is at least general enough that there is not a concrete position taken. If the WFC is of the Creationist view then why the ambiguity? I think that would be a question that is in much greater need of answer....

Since Creationism had been the consensus for centuries of theological thought and Traducianism would have inherently denied Federalism at the time of the writing of the WCF, didn't Federal theology reject Traducianism as the WCF writers would have conceived of it at the time of its writing?

That's what I was driving at with my latest post in my interaction with Todd & Ruben. It is a bit anachronistic to read back a view that combines Federal theology with Traducianism and infer that they intended to leave out this issue. They simply didn't write about the Creation of the Soul but spoke about the transmission of sin. You can say, at best, that the WCF is silent on the matter but, again, my interest is how any holders of the Traducian view at the time of the writing could have affirmed Federal Theology.

Your question is kind of like the way some wonder why early Church Fathers didn't write about subjects that didn't become controversies until later in Church History.

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

Your question is kind of like the way some wonder why early Church Fathers didn't write about subjects that didn't become controversies until later in Church History.

I must be very confused. I thought that you were making the case that it was a very decided issue with a wall of partition between the Reformed camp and the Lutherans and RCs. Are you saying that it was not an issue of debate within the Reformed camps at the time of the writing?

Now I am not stating that the writers of the WCF were not Creationists but how can one say "Federal theology rejects Traducianism as the WCF writers would have conceived of it at the time of its writing?" What is that based on?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

What I'm saying is that, historically, Traducianism had been rejected and from my readings (albeit I am no Scholar), only Lutheran and anti-Federal theologians affirmed Traducianism. The RCC was Creationist as well from the Scholastics.

I'm not aware of any Traducian and Federal theologians at the time of the WCF writing. I'm suggesting that Creationism wasn't really an issue of debate. I think the WCF is silent on the issue from what I can tell but we cannot infer from the silence that the Framers intended something by it. That is anachronistic and assumes there were Traducian theologians who were Federal in their theology. I read from Turretin (and later Hodge) that Traducian theologians had a Realistic and not a Federal view.

 

[Prufrock]

I'm not sure I can see the distinction. From what I've read, Traducianism had been rejected for centuries. Is there evidence of a lack of Reformed consensus on this matter during the 16th and 17th centuries?

Rich, I don't have enough experience on this issue with regards to the British theologians or Westminster Divines to give a *confident* answer, but with respect to the continental theologians there is most certainly a Reformed consensus on the matter. Turretin, Voetius (at least on Heppe's authority: I have not yet arrived at this section of Voetius), Mastricht, Pictet, Polanus, Wollebius, Bucanus, Zanchius (from Heppe), Heidegger (at least, I recall -- I will confirm later), etc., all affirm the immediate creation and infusion of the soul. Most/many of the above cite traducianism as specifically the Lutheran position (maintained because of the authority of Luther), and cite "creationism" as the Reformed (and patristic/medieval position).

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

A rather interesting read (so far) is Theology of the Westminster symbols : a commentary historical, doctrinal, practical, on the confession of faith and catechism and the related formularies of the Presbyterian churches
One can obtain a soft copy in a variety of formats from the link above.

The author discusses Traducianism on Pg 248-251 giving some history and its current position. He claims that many Calvinistic divines "in this age" (1900) began to prefer Traducianism.

He also makes the claim that Augustine at one time leaned towards the traducian and at another towards the creation hypothesis which may explain the confusion in regards to his position as well....

The Author also quotes from "the Epistle Dedicatory to Truth's Victory over Error, the first Commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith ; as published by George Sinclare, 1684, from notes of the Latin lectures of Dr. David Dickson, Professor of Divinity, delivered in Edinburgh, 1650-1663." which seems to be of some value. I found a copy of it on monergism.